Existentialism continued

Dogbrain said:
Why is everyone afraid of Hume?
Click to expand...


According to the classical account, Hume's effort to articulate the conditions of moral responsibility, and the way they relate to the free will problem, should be understood primarily in terms of his views about the logic of our concepts of “liberty” and “necessity”. Free and responsible action, it is said, must be caused by the agent. There is, therefore, no incompatibility between free will and determinism.

Reference: Hume on Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

No need to fear, Dogbrain, Hume's logic is clear and understandable.

{By the way, nice avatar, Native}
 
Dogbrain said:
I question the premise. Prove that everything is ruled by logical necessity. It is merely claimed axiomatically, but not proved. I did not need quantum mechanics to deny logical necessity.
Click to expand...

No Dogbrain, the problem here is not the assumption of logical necessity. It turns out to be logically necessary that one can only measure both the momentum and position of a particle to a limited certainty. That is why, until QM, Spinoza was correct, his logic was irrefutable.

By the way, have you studied any formal logic ? We can map this situation formally.
 
OAT said:
I would guess that if everything is not ruled by logical necessity, even if you are God, there will be something that you as God cannot explain.
Click to expand...

Why? Logical necessity is not the same thing as being under the suzerainty of omniscience and omnipotence. Logical necessity means that there is no other way something could happen--that God would have no choice in anything He does.
 
If there is no free will, there is no actual choice made. If there is no actual choice made, there is no moral responsibility, and any attempt to assign one is merely a charade.

Moral responsibility, to have any validity outside a circle of intellectual masturbation (yes, I intentionally chose that term), requires free will.
 
Dogbrain said:
Why? Logical necessity is not the same thing as being under the suzerainty of omniscience and omnipotence. Logical necessity means that there is no other way something could happen--that God would have no choice in anything He does.
Click to expand...
Choices are necessary for those without complete information. God by definition should have complete information. He therefore, unlike limited beings like us, has no need to choose.
 
Dogbrain said:
If there is no free will, there is no actual choice made. If there is no actual choice made, there is no moral responsibility, and any attempt to assign one is merely a charade.

Moral responsibility, to have any validity outside a circle of intellectual masturbation (yes, I intentionally chose that term), requires free will.
Click to expand...
Only an illusion of free will is sufficient. Actual free will, if there is such a thing, is not necessary.
 
Bertrand_Russell said:
Is this a sound argument for rejection of free will ? If not, what are the logical fault(s) presented ? What is free will ? Does it mean that if I hit a billiard ball at a certain velocity and direction, that when it impacts another billiard ball, that the second ball will then move with a pre-determined velocity and direction ? Is that all that is meant by free will ? Determinism ? Is the argument valid in the current world of quantum mechanics ? What about freedom to live your life as you deem fit ? Freedom to do good or evil ? Was Spinoza's greatness that he challenged prevailing thought ?

Happy 4th.
Click to expand...

Kind regards, BR! A little late to the party, as seems to have become my custom of late... :D

I haven't read any Spinoza, so I can't respond with any detail. I have given considerable thought to the idea of free-will though, particularly since it is a central concept within Christianity.

What I have come away with is that without free-will, there is no "sin," and without sin there is no need for morality or moral teachings (and all of the associated trappings). There is no "right" and there is no "wrong," there is only whatever an entity deems appropriate in a given moment.

More crucially; without free-will, there is no love. Love that is not given freely is not love. Love cannot be forced, or mechanized, or automated. Yet love is a distinguishing component of the the human condition. Since love must be given freely in order to exist (and love does exist), then "will" must be "free" afterall.

I do think that one argument suggesting that will cannot be "entirely" free (because of influences) is misleading, confusing the ability to will with will itself. There are many influences on a person's will, but that should not be interpreted as that will not being free. The reason is that a given person still picks and chooses among the influences that govern his/her choices. I may choose to will in a given direction *in part* by influences from my upbringing, education, peer pressure, unique thoughts and experiences, religious indoctrination and / or any other memes, etc., etc., etc. I may even choose to eat a sandwich simply because I am hungry. Why a sandwich? Because that is what is conveniently available, and I am too lazy to go to the store for anything else I might choose instead. These choices, although influenced by experience, are freely made. We could, in theory, just as freely choose to go against our experience, and pay the consequence of our lack of better judgment. I suppose I could choose to eat an Indian curry...but that is not in my repertoire of experience and it is not convenient...even though it is on my "to do" list. :) I could just as freely choose to eat the spoiled egg salad in spite of the consequences I have already experienced, :p , but that would only serve to demonstrate my lack of wisdom influencing my freely made choice... ;)
 
Unless you are the Almightly, human choices are always limited or affected by conditions and various factors. Isolate the act of choosing from the conditions and factors impinging on the act of choosing, and the act of choosing has no meaning. Yes, you can and have the ability to choose. But merely saying that you choose freely does not mean that your choice is free. You may "freely" choose to go against your experience but what makes you "freely" choose to do so?
 
OAT said:
Unless you are the Almightly, human choices are always limited ...
Click to expand...
...by the condition of being human. Within the condition of being human choices are freely made. ;) Since we do not experience life outside of the human condition, (presuming on my part that I do not re-experience a next life as a rat or cockroach or some other lifeform in some vicious unending cycle), then all human experience including free will is confined within that human condition. That does not negate free will. :D

What is love?
 
Within the human condition, one has the illusion of freedom in making choices. That's the point I was trying to make. That's the point that was hinted at in the provided links.
 
That's OK, but I see you've avoided the issue of love.

How can love be love if it is managed or dictated? Or is love an illusion as well?
 
juantoo3 said:
That's OK, but I see you've avoided the issue of love.

How can love be love if it is managed or dictated? Or is love an illusion as well?
Click to expand...
I believe we are discussing will or ability to choose/decide. Your choosing who or what to love is also dependent on various conditions, factors, influences etc. How else would you explain while someone can love a particular person, another may hate that same person and yet another could be entirely indifferent to that same person?
 
OAT said:
I believe we are discussing will or ability to choose/decide. Your choosing who or what to love is also dependent on various conditions, factors, influences etc.
Click to expand...

I think I am beginning to understand where the semantic difficulty lies. From my vantage I see something akin to a "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy brewing. That is, confusing something that informs for something that causes.
 
juantoo3 said:
That's OK, but I see you've avoided the issue of love.

How can love be love if it is managed or dictated? Or is love an illusion as well?
Click to expand...

Love seems to be more a state of open-ended commitment without reservation. In that sense it's a personal process where safety is abandoned, rather than an ideal.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Love seems to be more a state of open-ended commitment without reservation. In that sense it's a personal process where safety is abandoned, rather than an ideal.

Chris
Click to expand...

Hey Chris! Good to "see" you again! I was away for a while...

I can't really argue with your assessment of love, and in some sense it may be that I incorrectly phrased my question.

Free will, love and morality are intertwined; they each mutually support and feed the others. This is not simply a human characteristic, the essential concept can be observed across social species.

And since will is not limited to humans, it would seem to indicate that will is even freer among other animals...they are not burdened by formal education, mass media barrages, or 250 channels on the vidiot box. Yet, they still manage to choose, love and demonstrate an elemental morality...
 
juantoo3 said:
I think I am beginning to understand where the semantic difficulty lies. From my vantage I see something akin to a "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy brewing. That is, confusing something that informs for something that causes.
Click to expand...
I guess this means that love for you is either completely random or you have completely no say.
 
OAT said:
I guess this means that love for you is either completely random or you have completely no say.
Click to expand...

Would that not put me in agreement with you then, that will is only illusion, therefore love is something imposed on us from beyond / outside ourselves? That perhaps love is nothing more than a chemical reaction inside our minds?

So what is the cause of love?
 
A person driving their automobile stopped at a red traffic light. The light turned green. The car started to go through the intersection.

Did the green traffic light *cause* the car to go? Or did the green light *inform* the driver who then removed "his" foot from the brake and applied the trottle to make the transmission engage and the car to move forward?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top